Anyone else think game critics are playing a big prank on gamers?

               (Or are they really deluded enough to think these two games are decent?) The games I speak of, of course, are Halo 3 and The Ooze. Yes, both these games are hideously overrated. Now I know what many of you are thinking: of me dying a horrible death for insulting your messiah. Just remember that I didn't start the Flame War. And in an attempt to keep the hatred to a minimum, I'll start with The Ooze and end with Halo 3. So as I alluded to in the last sentence, The Ooze. It was a Genesis game released when the system was pretty much dead, so don't expect major quality. Anyway, there was a story here, but I decided to make up my own: you play as Fred Fredburger (oozified, of course (at 1:39)), who....eh, the story they provided was better than the one I'm trying to come up with. As I said before, you play as a pile of ooze, and you have several ways to attack your enemies. You can shoot ooze balls at your enemies, strike them with your oozy appendages, or collect an instant death poison power up. Speaking of power ups, there are only a few I found: aside from the poison thing, there's super speed, DNA for the "good" ending (more on that later), and extra ooze. Ooze acts as your health and form of attack, and it's really fun to roam around levels as a huge nuclear mess.
               Wait, "roam around levels"....isn't that where the big flaw comes in? Exactly. What could've been a good game was ruined by awful level design. Most of your time will be spent looking for switches to activate or random holes in the architecture that lead somewhere. Some of these switches and holes are hidden out of vision with no hints as to their existence! Who designed these levels, sadists with an unusually random train of thought? Naturally, this means the game is hard. You'll spend a lot of time on this game, just figuring out where the hell you're supposed to go. So you'd think that this would make for a decent ending, right? Well, The Ooze suffers from Ghosts 'n Goblins Syndrome, throwing a crap ending at you for 100%ing it.
               While I'm bashing the game, I might as well bring up exploding enemies. Aside from collecting goo orbs, you also collect extra ooze by beating enemeis. However, kinda late in the game, you encounter exploding enemies. "No problem, right? I'll just collect a large amount of ooze, stay at a distance, and attack them with my oozy appendages." Not gonna work, Mr. Optimistic. Some of these enemies are actually dragged into you as soon as you beat them. And they explode within an inch of your life (literally). The only way to avoid this is to shoot your goo at them, which again, uses up health. Either way, you're gonna lose health.
               It's a shame that The Ooze sucks so hard, because there were some good ideas behind it. After all, who doesn't want to control a poisonous puddle of muck, destroying everything in that dares cross their path? And the idea itself is well executed, as I mentioned earlier. Graphics are decent, and the music pushes the limits of the system, so you'd think the game would be great, right? Too bad crap level design ruined the whole thing. So I give it the Chakan Award for Bad Genesis Level Design.

               *sigh* Well, it had to come to this eventually, didn't it? Gonna review Halo 3. I know a lot of you are going to bash my head in like a furious Sonic, but I'm going to state my opinion anyway! But first, a bit of useless backstory. On my experiences, obviously. Through a series of tough negotiations, I was allowed to borrow one Xbox 360 game from somebody. I chose Halo 3 just to see what the fuck everybody loved about it. Before I played the game, I found a poster in the box unclaimed. Why do I say this? Well, I already had a Halo 3 poster. Being the massive idiot I am, I now have two Halo 3 posters adorning my walls.
               However, none of this answered my original question: what's so great about Halo 3? After playing it for a few days (ooh, short game, not getting off to a good start), I can safely say that I still don't know what people love about it so much. I must admit that I didn't play the two previous Halo games, but why should I?; a truly great game doesn't have to use other games as a crutch. Given the previous, I had no idea what was going on storywise. Apparently, some purple chick was stolen, and bad aliens are trying to do something with their god that involves proposal rings of death. So some good aliens (who rebelled against the bad aliens) team up with you to win back th-I CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE OF THIS!!! I seriously had no idea what was going on throughout the entire game, and although stories don't always hold back a game, it really helps to know what the hell you're doing.
               Whatever, I didn't understand the story, let's move onto something else. How about the mandatory gameplay explanation? Well, this is a first person shooter, and you get a variety of weapons, ranging from swords and hammers to rifles and grenade launchers. Too bad you can only carry two at a time. Why is there this asinine weapon limit on the player? To make it feel more realistic? First off.....no. Real soldiers are trained to carry pounds upon pounds of heavy equipment daily; I think Master Chief can live with another weapon. Second, why realism? Realism isn't always good. And this wouldn't be so bad if all your weapons could pick up and restock on ammo, but no, only a select few can. So you're forced to scavenge weapons on the fly, a strategy which usually gives you a shit weapon. I fail to see the appeal in this, one of the series' hallmark concepts.
               The other hallmark of the series? The cover system. Rather than a simple HP system that would encourage conservation, strategy, and not running in like Rambo, you get regenerating health. If you're low on health, don't worry; just find something to hide behind, and you'll get it back. It doesn't even have to be decent cover, since enemies suddenly forget of your existence if you happen to hide behind a nearby pebble. It removes all strategy from battle, all of them devolving into one common tactic: pump the aliens full of lead until they're completely magnetic, hiding behind anything if you lose enough health. However, unlike the limited inventory, I can see how this might have worked. If Bungie decided to make a Vietnam based shooter, where the atmosphere and scenarios would have encouraged active cover and plodding combat, then I (and gamers worldwide) would most likely enjoy it more. After all, how many Vietnam based shooters have you played? Exactly. But instead, Bungie wanted to have their cake and eat it, too (original meaning heauh), by making it a crappy action-oriented FPS.
               Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. The graphics are OK. At times, it looks a bit like Ninja Gaiden II, and I thought that game had decent graphics...most of the time. Howevecr, Halo 3 has some sort of lighting problem; the game constantly osscilates between "surface of the sun" and "dear God, I'm blind." I tried turning up the

Where I would rank this game.
brightn ess both on my television and the game itself, yet neither fixed the problem. Maybe there should've been a feature to bring down the contrast, maybe? Aw, who the hell am I kidding, nothing could make this game better. I tried listening to music from good games while playing it, thinking that would make the game better, but like Duke Nukem 64, it fixed nothing. The deployable cover system remained useless; the final boss was still piss easy; the combat was still mindless and patronizing; and the story was still more confusing than the damn Voynich manuscript.
               Seriously, what has happened to gaming that this is considered good? This game is not good at all. I'd say this is what happens when you apply film philosophies to the video game medium, but that would sound pretentious. Besides, Final Fantasy XII displays that with far more gusto than Halo 3 ever could. No, wait, I will say that is what happens when you do what I just said. The story is up its own ass far enough, and the music is the passive ambiance crap you see (OK, hear) in big name movies. Why do you think I listened to all that music? I came into this game expecting a fantastic adventure, but I wouldn't rank this in my top 10 games of all time. I wouldn't even put it in my top 20. I don't know where I'd put it, but it definitely goes below my crap threshold (the point where games stop being good and start sucking). So I give this game the Kefka was Onto Something Award for Destruction of Humanity, and await your inevitable complaints, whether they're directed at my actual opinion, or towards the length of this blog. And of course, there are alternatives...

  

(Oh, that reminds me of a few things I forgot, like how the vehicles control like crap, or how your allies can't be trusted with 4th grade safety scissors. Just had to put that in here.)
288 Comments
289 Comments
Posted by Video_Game_King

               (Or are they really deluded enough to think these two games are decent?) The games I speak of, of course, are Halo 3 and The Ooze. Yes, both these games are hideously overrated. Now I know what many of you are thinking: of me dying a horrible death for insulting your messiah. Just remember that I didn't start the Flame War. And in an attempt to keep the hatred to a minimum, I'll start with The Ooze and end with Halo 3. So as I alluded to in the last sentence, The Ooze. It was a Genesis game released when the system was pretty much dead, so don't expect major quality. Anyway, there was a story here, but I decided to make up my own: you play as Fred Fredburger (oozified, of course (at 1:39)), who....eh, the story they provided was better than the one I'm trying to come up with. As I said before, you play as a pile of ooze, and you have several ways to attack your enemies. You can shoot ooze balls at your enemies, strike them with your oozy appendages, or collect an instant death poison power up. Speaking of power ups, there are only a few I found: aside from the poison thing, there's super speed, DNA for the "good" ending (more on that later), and extra ooze. Ooze acts as your health and form of attack, and it's really fun to roam around levels as a huge nuclear mess.
               Wait, "roam around levels"....isn't that where the big flaw comes in? Exactly. What could've been a good game was ruined by awful level design. Most of your time will be spent looking for switches to activate or random holes in the architecture that lead somewhere. Some of these switches and holes are hidden out of vision with no hints as to their existence! Who designed these levels, sadists with an unusually random train of thought? Naturally, this means the game is hard. You'll spend a lot of time on this game, just figuring out where the hell you're supposed to go. So you'd think that this would make for a decent ending, right? Well, The Ooze suffers from Ghosts 'n Goblins Syndrome, throwing a crap ending at you for 100%ing it.
               While I'm bashing the game, I might as well bring up exploding enemies. Aside from collecting goo orbs, you also collect extra ooze by beating enemeis. However, kinda late in the game, you encounter exploding enemies. "No problem, right? I'll just collect a large amount of ooze, stay at a distance, and attack them with my oozy appendages." Not gonna work, Mr. Optimistic. Some of these enemies are actually dragged into you as soon as you beat them. And they explode within an inch of your life (literally). The only way to avoid this is to shoot your goo at them, which again, uses up health. Either way, you're gonna lose health.
               It's a shame that The Ooze sucks so hard, because there were some good ideas behind it. After all, who doesn't want to control a poisonous puddle of muck, destroying everything in that dares cross their path? And the idea itself is well executed, as I mentioned earlier. Graphics are decent, and the music pushes the limits of the system, so you'd think the game would be great, right? Too bad crap level design ruined the whole thing. So I give it the Chakan Award for Bad Genesis Level Design.

               *sigh* Well, it had to come to this eventually, didn't it? Gonna review Halo 3. I know a lot of you are going to bash my head in like a furious Sonic, but I'm going to state my opinion anyway! But first, a bit of useless backstory. On my experiences, obviously. Through a series of tough negotiations, I was allowed to borrow one Xbox 360 game from somebody. I chose Halo 3 just to see what the fuck everybody loved about it. Before I played the game, I found a poster in the box unclaimed. Why do I say this? Well, I already had a Halo 3 poster. Being the massive idiot I am, I now have two Halo 3 posters adorning my walls.
               However, none of this answered my original question: what's so great about Halo 3? After playing it for a few days (ooh, short game, not getting off to a good start), I can safely say that I still don't know what people love about it so much. I must admit that I didn't play the two previous Halo games, but why should I?; a truly great game doesn't have to use other games as a crutch. Given the previous, I had no idea what was going on storywise. Apparently, some purple chick was stolen, and bad aliens are trying to do something with their god that involves proposal rings of death. So some good aliens (who rebelled against the bad aliens) team up with you to win back th-I CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE OF THIS!!! I seriously had no idea what was going on throughout the entire game, and although stories don't always hold back a game, it really helps to know what the hell you're doing.
               Whatever, I didn't understand the story, let's move onto something else. How about the mandatory gameplay explanation? Well, this is a first person shooter, and you get a variety of weapons, ranging from swords and hammers to rifles and grenade launchers. Too bad you can only carry two at a time. Why is there this asinine weapon limit on the player? To make it feel more realistic? First off.....no. Real soldiers are trained to carry pounds upon pounds of heavy equipment daily; I think Master Chief can live with another weapon. Second, why realism? Realism isn't always good. And this wouldn't be so bad if all your weapons could pick up and restock on ammo, but no, only a select few can. So you're forced to scavenge weapons on the fly, a strategy which usually gives you a shit weapon. I fail to see the appeal in this, one of the series' hallmark concepts.
               The other hallmark of the series? The cover system. Rather than a simple HP system that would encourage conservation, strategy, and not running in like Rambo, you get regenerating health. If you're low on health, don't worry; just find something to hide behind, and you'll get it back. It doesn't even have to be decent cover, since enemies suddenly forget of your existence if you happen to hide behind a nearby pebble. It removes all strategy from battle, all of them devolving into one common tactic: pump the aliens full of lead until they're completely magnetic, hiding behind anything if you lose enough health. However, unlike the limited inventory, I can see how this might have worked. If Bungie decided to make a Vietnam based shooter, where the atmosphere and scenarios would have encouraged active cover and plodding combat, then I (and gamers worldwide) would most likely enjoy it more. After all, how many Vietnam based shooters have you played? Exactly. But instead, Bungie wanted to have their cake and eat it, too (original meaning heauh), by making it a crappy action-oriented FPS.
               Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. The graphics are OK. At times, it looks a bit like Ninja Gaiden II, and I thought that game had decent graphics...most of the time. Howevecr, Halo 3 has some sort of lighting problem; the game constantly osscilates between "surface of the sun" and "dear God, I'm blind." I tried turning up the

Where I would rank this game.
brightn ess both on my television and the game itself, yet neither fixed the problem. Maybe there should've been a feature to bring down the contrast, maybe? Aw, who the hell am I kidding, nothing could make this game better. I tried listening to music from good games while playing it, thinking that would make the game better, but like Duke Nukem 64, it fixed nothing. The deployable cover system remained useless; the final boss was still piss easy; the combat was still mindless and patronizing; and the story was still more confusing than the damn Voynich manuscript.
               Seriously, what has happened to gaming that this is considered good? This game is not good at all. I'd say this is what happens when you apply film philosophies to the video game medium, but that would sound pretentious. Besides, Final Fantasy XII displays that with far more gusto than Halo 3 ever could. No, wait, I will say that is what happens when you do what I just said. The story is up its own ass far enough, and the music is the passive ambiance crap you see (OK, hear) in big name movies. Why do you think I listened to all that music? I came into this game expecting a fantastic adventure, but I wouldn't rank this in my top 10 games of all time. I wouldn't even put it in my top 20. I don't know where I'd put it, but it definitely goes below my crap threshold (the point where games stop being good and start sucking). So I give this game the Kefka was Onto Something Award for Destruction of Humanity, and await your inevitable complaints, whether they're directed at my actual opinion, or towards the length of this blog. And of course, there are alternatives...

  

(Oh, that reminds me of a few things I forgot, like how the vehicles control like crap, or how your allies can't be trusted with 4th grade safety scissors. Just had to put that in here.)
Edited by TheGremp
Posted by Hausdog

Reviewers have to do that. They're all in bed with all the major releases because if they're not they lose their credibility. Can you imagine what would happen if someone gave Halo 3 a 6 or 7 out of 10? The fanboys would riot and boycott in a fit of pissy I mean righteous fury. Netjak.com still gets hatemail from when the site owner reviewed SSBM, and that was the site's 3rd review out of almost 1500. I take ALL professional reviews, no matter where their from, with a grain of salt, and so should you. When it's someone's personal site, they can say whatever they damn well please because they are writing for the love of it. Even Giant Bomb, despite its indie cred, is not immune from having to appease the fanboys.

Posted by Zajtalan

not reading that wall

Posted by Video_Game_King
Hausdog said:
"Reviewers have to do that. They're all in bed with all the major releases because if they're not they lose their credibility. Can you imagine what would happen if someone gave Halo 3 a 6 or 7 out of 10? The fanboys would riot and boycott in a fit of pissy I mean righteous fury. Netjak.com still gets hatemail from when the site owner reviewed SSBM, and that was the site's 3rd review out of almost 1500. I take ALL professional reviews, no matter where their from, with a grain of salt, and so should you. When it's someone's personal site, they can say whatever they damn well please because they are writing for the love of it. Even Giant Bomb, despite its indie cred, is not immune from having to appease the fanboys."
And to think they could've ended this all in the first place if they called the first game crap...

TheGremp said:
"tl;dr.

And that's a lot of hyperlinks to click.

and before you say that I just ignored it because I'm a Halo 3 fanboy...  Think again.  I hate Halo 3.  It's overrated, and an average game at best.  I'm a 360 gamer, and I don't even own Halo 3."
You have any advice on making short reviews that still offer some insight to the game they cover? Hm? At least wait for five other people to call it crap. (And I tried to make the hyperlinks more relevant this time. It's not video, I can't do both simultaneously.)

Posted by Hausdog

The first game WASN'T crap, though. It's certainly not my cup of tea, but it did a whole bunch of things FPS's hadn't done before. The only problem is that they appeal to the young teen crowd, the same age group as Hannah Montana and Kidz Bop, so they are content to have the EXACT same thing over and over again. Video game reviewers have to keep them happy even if that means not reviewing games as part of a changing landscape. If Mario for the NES came out today it would be universally panned as a terrible game, but at the time everyone was rightly fawning all over it because it was an innovative game. The Super Mario team wasn't rehashing the same thing for seven years or so like Bungie was.

Posted by Video_Game_King
Hausdog said:
"The first game WASN'T crap, though. It's certainly not my cup of tea, but it did a whole bunch of things FPS's hadn't done before. The only problem is that they appeal to the young teen crowd, the same age group as Hannah Montana and Kidz Bop, so they are content to have the EXACT same thing over and over again. Video game reviewers have to keep them happy even if that means not reviewing games as part of a changing landscape. If Mario for the NES came out today it would be universally panned as a terrible game, but at the time everyone was rightly fawning all over it because it was an innovative game. The Super Mario team wasn't rehashing the same thing for seven years or so like Bungie was."
Again, this is the first one I've played. And again, as I said before, it seems several of those changes were for the worse. Why do I have to hide behind a nearby crate every time I get so much as scratched? What happened to health packs or body armor?
Posted by iAmJohn

Why do you have so many hyperlinks in your wall of text?  Do you want me not to read it because I'm too busy clicking all those damn links?

Posted by LiquidPrince

Pebble comment made me chuckle.

Posted by Video_Game_King
iAmJohn said:
"Why do you have so many hyperlinks in your wall of text?  Do you want me not to read it because I'm too busy clicking all those damn links?"
If I didn't include the links, somebody would inevitably call it a wall of text. The hyperlinks are there for humor and to keep your attention, sort of. Again, this is text.
Posted by 4fsdf232324wec

yeah i like halo 3 and all but  it is way overrated and i to did start playing the 3rd one first in fact its the only one i played

Posted by iAmJohn
Video_Game_King said:
"iAmJohn said:
"Why do you have so many hyperlinks in your wall of text?  Do you want me not to read it because I'm too busy clicking all those damn links?"
If I didn't include the links, somebody would inevitably call it a wall of text. The hyperlinks are there for humor and to keep your attention, sort of. Again, this is text."
So then write more interesting text so that the text itself keeps my attention? :\
Edited by Brundage

Halo 3 is easley the best multiplayer you can find on the X360. In no way was that game ever overrated seriously, give it up and move on. Just because you hate the game doesn't meen its a bad game.

btw regenerating health ins't a cover system. . . .

Posted by Linkyshinks

Woah.

You have written some good stuff on the site before, they may have been long OP's, but I have read them. This one's another matter entirely, it's way too long to strike up discussion. It could have done with better formatting and perhaps bullet points when possible. It's just daunting looking at it dude.



Yes, and I think Jeff Gerstmann is the biggest joker in the pack.


Posted by Video_Game_King
Brundage said:
"Halo 3 is easley the best multiplayer you can find on the X360. In no way was that game ever overrated seriously, give it up and move on. Just because you hate the game doesn't meen its a bad game.btw regenerating health ins't a cover system. . . ."
No, I seriously failed to see the appeal of this game. I remember it being advertised for the single player campaign. Remember "finish the fight?" I don't recall the commercials advertising, "fun for the whole party," like Brawl did. So I played the single player game, expecting one of the best games ever, as so many people have told me. Didn't happen. And I know that my hatred isn't enough to classify the game as bad; that's why I listed a bunch of other reasons.

iAmJohn said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"iAmJohn said:
"Why do you have so many hyperlinks in your wall of text?  Do you want me not to read it because I'm too busy clicking all those damn links?"
If I didn't include the links, somebody would inevitably call it a wall of text. The hyperlinks are there for humor and to keep your attention, sort of. Again, this is text."
So then write more interesting text so that the text itself keeps my attention? :\
"
Any suggestions on that? I'd say "I don't see you doing any better," but that'd be immature and weird.

Posted by Brundage
Video_Game_King said:
"Brundage said:
"Halo 3 is easley the best multiplayer you can find on the X360. In no way was that game ever overrated seriously, give it up and move on. Just because you hate the game doesn't meen its a bad game.btw regenerating health ins't a cover system. . . ."
No, I seriously failed to see the appeal of this game. I remember it being advertised for the single player campaign. Remember "finish the fight?" I don't recall the commercials advertising, "fun for the whole party," like Brawl did. So I played the single player game, expecting one of the best games ever, as so many people have told me. Didn't happen. And I know that my hatred isn't enough to classify the game as bad; that's why I listed a bunch of other reasons.
Exactly, it said "finish the fight" if you haven't played the previous two games how would you expect to get anything out of the game story wise. Your not giving the game enough credit, you didn't review the whole game. Did you play the campaign using co-op? Did you play the multiplayer? Did you use the forge feature? There's so much more to this game then just the campaign and just because they didn't advertise it doesn't meen its not there.
Posted by Video_Game_King
Brundage said:
Exactly, it said "finish the fight" if you haven't played the previous two games how would you expect to get anything out of the game story wise. Your not giving the game enough credit, you didn't review the whole game. Did you play the campaign using co-op? Did you play the multiplayer? Did you use the forge feature? There's so much more to this game then just the campaign and just because they didn't advertise it doesn't meen its not there."
Look, as I said, a good game doesn't have to rely on other games to make it good. Look at Final Fantasy, as fanboyish as that sounds (as if this isn't leading down Fanboy Avenue). All the games have their own separate storylines and different combat/experience systems. None of them have to rely on the game before them to be good. Halo 3, on the other hand, seems to rely on the previous two games to be good. Not a great idea. And I would've played co-op, but I don't have any friends, only a Silver account, and that would most likely make the game too easy. How would having another person change the "hide behind a box" health system? And with the Forge and multiplayer tihngs, I didn't play that either, mainly because I (and many other people) don't care. The campaign may not be everything, but it seems like Microsoft and Bungie sure as hell wanted you to play that. If they wanted a multiplayer game, they probably would've said that somewhere in the advertisements. Again, they said "finish the fight," not "finish the fight and start another one" (because that's far too honest and funny and honest :P).
Edited by PenguinDust

Well, I read the entire "wall" as some people described it, and I found it an interesting read.  I like Halo 3, but that's just my opinion. If you want to tell me to "shut up", then you can, however, I'm not going to try and convince you that it's a good game or that you are wrong.  You have your opinion, and I have mine.   Not every game appeals to every player.  The curse of humanity is that we are individuals. 

So, I guess by your thread's title, you are trying to assert (comically, I assume) that everyone who has professionally praised either of these games are secretly laughing up their sleeves at gamers who bought them and (because the masses are ignorant and unwashed) liked them.  Maybe so.  I guess with the posting of this thread, the jig is up on that ruse.  Thank you for exposing this conspiracy.  Now get to work on that whole "moon landing" thing.
Posted by Gizmo

Halo 3 is brilliant, get over it.

Edited by Video_Game_King
Gizmo said:
"Halo 3 is brilliant, get over it."
Mind justifying that opinion? Do you have anything to back it up, because I didn't find it brilliant at all. The plot, maybe? Yea, most of the game is spent trying to save Cortana from aliens who speak in angry green words. You know what that means? The plot can be boiled down to the same level as Mario: SAVE THE PRINCESS.

PenguinDust
said:
"Well, I read the entire "wall" as some people described it, and I found it an interesting read.  I like Halo 3, but that's just my opinion. If you want to tell me to "shut up", then you can, however, I'm not going to try and convince you that it's a good game or that you are wrong.  You have your opinion, and I have mine.   Not every game appeals to every player.  The curse of humanity is that we are individuals. 

So, I guess by your thread's title, you are trying to assert (comically, I assume) that everyone who has professionally praised either of these games are secretly laughing up their sleeves at gamers who bought them and (because the masses are ignorant and unwashed) liked them.  Maybe so.  I guess with the posting of this thread, the jig is up on that ruse.  Thank you for exposing this conspiracy.  Now get to work on that whole "moon landing" thing."
Curse? Who the hell said it was a curse? (I'm an individualist.) Yes, I asserted that comically, but half seriously. And the moon landing? It actually happened, kinda. How do I know? I'm KING OF THE MOON (where did you think the Video Game Kingdom was?). But they just landed on the outside shield we put up. If you guys saw what was under it, you'd find that your nose would be leaking heavy amounts of sperm. Why? Because it'd BLOW YOUR MIND.
Posted by HazBazz

tl;dr, people have opinions, deal with it

Posted by Weltal

*Shrug* It's your opinion. I can't say I'm in love with the game but I enjoy the time I've spent with it. So, in answer to you rhetorical question, no.

Posted by Video_Game_King
Weltal said:
"*Shrug* It's your opinion. I can't say I'm in love with the game but I enjoy the time I've spent with it. So, in answer to you rhetorical question, no."
Well, at least you weren't one of those people who say my blogs are too long and that "Halo is teh rox, u r just crap at it" or something to that effect. (I'm surprised none of this was in my last blog, where I outright called the game overrated.)
Edited by Death_Unicorn

You know, picking up Halo 3 and thinking you would understand the story is sorta crazy. I mean stories can have continuations, and basically the 3 Halo's are all part of the same story. You basically jumped into the end and hoped to understand it. Remember Lord of the Rings, that came in 3  parts as well. Star Wars? That came in 6 parts.

I mean you can dislike the story, but saying the story sucks because it relies on the other two games is ludicrous.

Posted by Video_Game_King

There's a difference between continuing the story from a previous installation and relying on things before it. I could understand the story of The Last Crusade or Return of the Jedi without previous knowledge; I didn't need to play FE7 to play FE6 (FE7 was a prequel); I could list several examples. In fact, I will, like Dragon Warrior, Fire Emblem, Kingdom Hearts, Resident Evil, etc.

Posted by PenguinDust
How'd NASA miss that?
Video_Game_King said:
How do I know? I'm KING OF THE MOON (where did you think the Video Game Kingdom was?). But they just landed on the outside shield we put up. If you guys saw what was under it, you'd find that your nose would be leaking heavy amounts of sperm. Why? Because it'd BLOW YOUR MIND."
That just blew my mind, too...now I'm a mess.
Posted by TooWalrus
Video_Game_King said:
"However, none of this answered my original question: what's so great about Halo 3?"
It was fucking fun, how about that?
Posted by Video_Game_King
PenguinDust said:
"
How'd NASA miss that?
Video_Game_King said:
How do I know? I'm KING OF THE MOON (where did you think the Video Game Kingdom was?). But they just landed on the outside shield we put up. If you guys saw what was under it, you'd find that your nose would be leaking heavy amounts of sperm. Why? Because it'd BLOW YOUR MIND."
That just blew my mind, too...now I'm a mess."
No, the shield was above everything, so they couldn't see it. I spent the time hurling spitballs at them (it was like a one way mirror)...in between calming the people of their fears that America would colonize the moon somehow.
Posted by Video_Game_King
TooWalrus said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"However, none of this answered my original question: what's so great about Halo 3?"
It was fucking fun, how about that?"
Fun? I didn't find it to be that fun. What's fun about pumping people full of lead and then hiding behind a box? The pumping full of lead is fun, but not when you throw in the stupid cover system. I think I justified that pretty damn well.
Posted by Crono

Man, if you are going to write a wall of text, you need to learn where a paragraph is supposed to begin and end; use double spacing between paragraphs to make it read a lot better. 

I probably would have read this if it had better formatting.  Formatting is extremely important in long posts, otherwise most people will simply dismiss your hard work.

Posted by Video_Game_King
Crono said:
"Man, if you are going to write a wall of text, you need to learn where a paragraph is supposed to begin and end; use double spacing between paragraphs to make it read a lot better.  I probably would have read this if it had better formatting.  Formatting is extremely important in long posts, otherwise most people will simply dismiss your hard work."
I actually did put a double space between the game reviews; just wasn't noticeable due to the fact that they kinda began and ended around the same area. I would've put in more pictures (like the ranking one), but I knew I didn't have enough. And I tried my best to format it into paragraphs that covered some central idea. Any specific clues (not calling these bad, just asking for examples)?
Posted by thiago

I never played the 3rd one, because I don't own a 360. But the first one was simply awful. Maybe the hype in the first one was because Microsoft was investing heavily in marketing? I don't know. And the sequels were just as hyped as a consequence?

The game itself was so repetitive to the point of being unbearable. The maps were bland and stupid, the story is as dumb as Power Rangers or something like that.

The only innovations were either logical, i.e., not revolutions or something unimaginable, or adaptations for consoles. For example, a separate button for grenades. This is clearly for improving the playbility of FPSes on consoles. The regenerating health was just a way to avoid having to add health packs to the game and doesn't really change the game for better.

I was already old enough when I played the first Halo, so I just thought it was stupid. Maybe people played the first one when they were like 7 years old and then they grew thinking that game was awesome. The story sucks for any adult standard. It may be interesting for kids though, because it has monsters and colorful things.

Posted by Video_Game_King
thiago said:
"I never played the 3rd one, because I don't own a 360. But the first one was simply awful. Maybe the hype in the first one was because Microsoft was investing heavily in marketing? I don't know. And the sequels were just as hyped as a consequence?The game itself was so repetitive to the point of being unbearable. The maps were bland and stupid, the story is as dumb as Power Rangers or something like that.The only innovations were either logical, i.e., not revolutions or something unimaginable, or adaptations for consoles. For example, a separate button for grenades. This is clearly for improving the playbility of FPSes on consoles. The regenerating health was just a way to avoid having to add health packs to the game and doesn't really change the game for better. I was already old enough when I played the first Halo, so I just thought it was stupid. Maybe people played the first one when they were like 7 years old and then they grew thinking that game was awesome. The story sucks for any adult standard. It may be interesting for kids though, because it has monsters and colorful things."
Yay, somebody who didn't like the game, yet (and this is what I love about the post) reasonably justified their opinion. Where are all these people :P...:(?
Posted by CL60

Just because you don't like a game and a vast number of people like it doesn't mean it is overrated, the term overrated is just simply a retarded word that people use when they dislike a popular thing.

Posted by Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
"Just because you don't like a game and a vast number of people like it doesn't mean it is overrated, the term overrated is just simply a retarded word that people use when they dislike a popular thing."
Apparently, we have different definitions of overrated. My definition is "something that receives more critical acclaim than it deserves." Apparently your (and many people's) definition/interpretation is "bad." No, overrated does not mean bad. Final Fantasy VII was overrated, but the game is still pretty damn good, even with its flaws (like the lack of a playable wheelchair Cloud). However, in this case, the game is overrated and bad.
Posted by CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Just because you don't like a game and a vast number of people like it doesn't mean it is overrated, the term overrated is just simply a retarded word that people use when they dislike a popular thing."
Apparently, we have different definitions of overrated. My definition is "something that receives more critical acclaim than it deserves." Apparently your (and many people's) definition/interpretation is "bad." No, overrated does not mean bad. Final Fantasy VII was overrated, but the game is still pretty damn good, even with its flaws (like the lack of a playable wheelchair Cloud). However, in this case, the game is overrated and bad."
Simple fact saying something is overrated is stupid, beings as clearly people like it, so clearly it isn't bad, that is just your opinion and fact is. Halo isn't as bad as you people make it out to be. Game's like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, Alone in the Dark, Vampire Rain, etc. are bad. Halo is a good game, maybe not great, but to say it is the most terrible thing ever is utterly ridiculous.
Edited by get2sammyb

I can concur with the above user who commented on reviewers pandering to their readership for fear of a boycott and perceived loss of "credibility".

Imagine if madeupvideogameswebsite.com gives Halo 3 a 2/10 and Killzone 2 a 10/10 -- ok, this is all hypothetical but let's PRETEND they seriously thought that was how the games should be scored. 90% of that sites 360 fanbase instantly calls bias and 50% of those stop becoming regular visitors. Less visitors, less ad revenue.

It's much easier to give Halo 3 an 8/10 and Killzone 2 an 8/10. Everyone's then happy.

And I really do believe this plays a big part.

Posted by Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
Simple fact saying something is overrated is stupid, beings as clearly people like it, so clearly it isn't bad, that is just your opinion and fact is. Halo isn't as bad as you people make it out to be. Game's like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, Alone in the Dark, Vampire Rain, etc. are bad. Halo is a good game, maybe not great, but to say it is the most terrible thing ever is utterly ridiculous."
I never said that Halo 3 was on the same level as those games (that I've never played). Look at the picture: it lands below the crap threshold, but is high within that regard. I've played worse games (Black, Paladin's Quest, Cyborg Justice), but I've played many better games. And the most terrible thing is Cyborg Justice.

get2sammyb said:
"I can concur with the above user who commented on reviewers pandering to their readership for fear of a boycott and perceived loss of "credibility".Imagine if madeupvideogameswebsite.com gives Halo 3 a 2/10 and Killzone 2 a 10/10 -- ok, this is all hypothetical but let's PRETEND they seriously thought that was how the games should be scored. 90% of that sites 360 fanbase instantly calls bias and 50% of those stop becoming regular visitors.It's much easier to give Halo 3 an 8/10 and Killzone 2 an 8/10. Everyone's then happy.And I really do believe this plays a big part."

Screw that, be honest with your reviews, then. If a game is crap, I usually call it out for being crap. I'll admit bias if I have any, or anything that may have kept me from enjoying the game. Why don't other reviewers do this? (I'd say that Killzone (from that perspective) is a good example of Lufia Syndrome: average first game, great sequel.)
Posted by CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
Simple fact saying something is overrated is stupid, beings as clearly people like it, so clearly it isn't bad, that is just your opinion and fact is. Halo isn't as bad as you people make it out to be. Game's like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, Alone in the Dark, Vampire Rain, etc. are bad. Halo is a good game, maybe not great, but to say it is the most terrible thing ever is utterly ridiculous."
I never said that Halo 3 was on the same level as those games (that I've never played). Look at the picture: it lands below the crap threshold, but is high within that regard. I've played worse games (Black, Paladin's Quest, Cyborg Justice), but I've played many better games. And the most terrible thing is Cyborg Justice.

That doesn't mean that Halo is a bad game in general, that just means you dislike it and "overrated" is thrown around way to much for a game somebody doesn't like, and there is no denying that. Every popular game in history, good or bad, people have said it's overrated, that doesn't make it true, that simply just means that person didn't like it while others did like it.
Posted by HatKing

Yep you're right Halo 3's story waaaaaaaaaay more confusing and contrived than 100% of the JRPGs that are released.

Posted by get2sammyb
Video_Game_King said:
"get2sammyb said:
"I can concur with the above user who commented on reviewers pandering to their readership for fear of a boycott and perceived loss of "credibility".Imagine if madeupvideogameswebsite.com gives Halo 3 a 2/10 and Killzone 2 a 10/10 -- ok, this is all hypothetical but let's PRETEND they seriously thought that was how the games should be scored. 90% of that sites 360 fanbase instantly calls bias and 50% of those stop becoming regular visitors.It's much easier to give Halo 3 an 8/10 and Killzone 2 an 8/10. Everyone's then happy.And I really do believe this plays a big part."
Screw that, be honest with your reviews, then. If a game is crap, I usually call it out for being crap. I'll admit bias if I have any, or anything that may have kept me from enjoying the game. Why don't other reviewers do this? (I'd say that Killzone (from that perspective) is a good example of Lufia Syndrome: average first game, great sequel.)"
I'm talking in terms of big sites like Eurogamer. I remember when EVERYONE was waiting for the Killzone 2 review, and they practically had the European online exclusive because the embargo lifted earlier in Europe and they'd obviously swindled some way of being able to publish a few hours earlier than the other sites.

They gave it 9/10. They couldn't have scored it any other way. Give it a 6/10 and the whole of the Internet screams bias, a mark on their "credibility" that would take years to wear away. Even if they genuinely believed the game deserved 6/10 -- they would have had to have scored it higher to pander to the readers. They'd have known that the world was waiting for their review -- particularly a vast majority of people who were crudely excited for the game.

I'm just using Killzone as a most recent example -- but it applies to any of the big games with a following really. I genuinely believe the bigger publications have to pander to their readers.

Could you imagine a Zelda game scoring less than 7?
Posted by Video_Game_King
HatKing said:
"Yep you're right Halo 3's story waaaaaaaaaay more confusing and contrived than 100% of the JRPGs that are released."
Wa? I wasn't really comparing it to JRPGs, but alright, I'll play this game. Let's name all of the JRPGs I've played that I thought had a better story than Halo 3, and this is off the top of my head: 7 Final Fantasys, the Zenithia trilogy of Dragon Quest, all Fire Emblems, Mother 3 (as much as I didn't like the game), Terranigma, Star Ocean, I can go on and on.

CL60 said:
That doesn't mean that Halo is a bad game in general, that just means you dislike it and "overrated" is thrown around way to much for a game somebody doesn't like, and there is no denying that. Every popular game in history, good or bad, people have said it's overrated, that doesn't make it true, that simply just means that person didn't like it while others did like it."
I'll give you the overrated thing, but I'll point out again that in this one case, the two terms are one and the same. And for some of those games, I'd say they're overrated, like Earthbound or Final Fantasy XII. For some good examples, I'd say Final Fantasy VII and maybe Mischief Makers.
Posted by Video_Game_King
get2sammyb said:
I'm talking in terms of big sites like Eurogamer. I remember when EVERYONE was waiting for the Killzone 2 review, and they practically had the European online exclusive because the embargo lifted earlier in Europe and they'd obviously swindled some way of being able to publish a few hours earlier than the other sites.They gave it 9/10. They couldn't have scored it any other way. Give it a 6/10 and the whole of the Internet screams bias, a mark on their "credibility" that would take years to wear away. Even if they genuinely believed the game deserved 6/10 -- they would have had to have scored it higher to pander to the readers. They'd have known that the world was waiting for their review -- particularly a vast majority of people who were crudely excited for the game.I'm just using Killzone as a most recent example -- but it applies to any of the big games with a following really. I genuinely believe the bigger publications have to pander to their readers.Could you imagine a Zelda game scoring less than 7?"
(grr, stupid autoformating) Maybe one site should stand up to this crap. Do other mediums have to put up with this? The only game critic I can name who can call a game crap without getting in trouble is Yahtzee, and that's only because he does it so damn much.

There are good reviewers, they could most likely pull it off. If somebody yells "BIAS!", they could point to the review.

I can sort of imagine it with the latest one (mainly due to the train part :*().
Posted by Psych0Penguin

 " Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. " - I LOL'd! 

Anyway its just their opinions and this is just yours neither is fact - not a massive fan of Halo 3 myself but I can see why people enjoy playing it, its just I suck at it and I don't enjoy it - basically reviewers are people too and reviews are just opinions that also inform. 
Posted by Crono
Video_Game_King said:
"Crono said:
"Man, if you are going to write a wall of text, you need to learn where a paragraph is supposed to begin and end; use double spacing between paragraphs to make it read a lot better.  I probably would have read this if it had better formatting.  Formatting is extremely important in long posts, otherwise most people will simply dismiss your hard work."
I actually did put a double space between the game reviews; just wasn't noticeable due to the fact that they kinda began and ended around the same area. I would've put in more pictures (like the ranking one), but I knew I didn't have enough. And I tried my best to format it into paragraphs that covered some central idea. Any specific clues (not calling these bad, just asking for examples)?"
Yes, I can give you some clues/examples.  I am not home right now, but when I get home later I will PM you.
Posted by Video_Game_King
Psych0Penguin said:
" " Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. " - I LOL'd! 
Anyway its just their opinions and this is just yours neither is fact - not a massive fan of Halo 3 myself but I can see why people enjoy playing it, its just I suck at it and I don't enjoy it - basically reviewers are people too and reviews are just opinions that also inform. 
"
But part of being a reviewer is objectivity; if a lot of reviewers think a game is 9.4, it better be 9.4. I've played previous games where I didn't like them, but could see the appeal (original Resident Evil, the entire Earthbound series, etc.); I felt nothing with this game.
Posted by CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"Psych0Penguin said:
" " Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. " - I LOL'd! 
Anyway its just their opinions and this is just yours neither is fact - not a massive fan of Halo 3 myself but I can see why people enjoy playing it, its just I suck at it and I don't enjoy it - basically reviewers are people too and reviews are just opinions that also inform. 
"
But part of being a reviewer is objectivity; if a lot of reviewers think a game is 9.4, it better be 9.4. I've played previous games where I didn't like them, but could see the appeal (original Resident Evil, the entire Earthbound series, etc.); I felt nothing with this game."
opinions ftl
Posted by Video_Game_King
Posted by Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"Psych0Penguin said:
" " Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. " - I LOL'd! 
Anyway its just their opinions and this is just yours neither is fact - not a massive fan of Halo 3 myself but I can see why people enjoy playing it, its just I suck at it and I don't enjoy it - basically reviewers are people too and reviews are just opinions that also inform. 
"
But part of being a reviewer is objectivity; if a lot of reviewers think a game is 9.4, it better be 9.4. I've played previous games where I didn't like them, but could see the appeal (original Resident Evil, the entire Earthbound series, etc.); I felt nothing with this game."
opinions ftl"
Care to expand, or are you going to leave it at that?
Posted by HandsomeDead

I'm not reading a word of the poorly formatted OP but it all comes down to opinion and just because you don't share it, it doesn't mean you're getting trolled.